<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
<channel>
	<title>Comments for FilterJoe</title>
	
	<link>http://www.filterjoe.com</link>
	<description>joe's filters for the average joe</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:52:52 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/Filterjoecomments" /><feedburner:info uri="filterjoecomments" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><feedburner:browserFriendly></feedburner:browserFriendly><item>
		<title>Comment on Filters for Reading on the Web by Starhawk</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/03/25/filters-for-reading-on-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-2302</link>
		<dc:creator>Starhawk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:52:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=211#comment-2302</guid>
		<description>I love Readability, just recently started using it. I also have found &lt;a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2592" rel="nofollow"&gt;NoSquint &lt;/a&gt;, a FF addon to be indispensable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love Readability, just recently started using it. I also have found <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2592" rel="nofollow">NoSquint </a>, a FF addon to be indispensable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Best Upgrade? The Browser . . . Five Browsers Compared by Joe Golton</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/04/24/best-upgrade-the-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-236</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Golton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:42:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=525#comment-236</guid>
		<description>UPDATE:  In the first half of 2009, 4 major browser upgrades were released.  Opera is the only browser which has not released a major upgrade in 2009, but one is expected by the end of the year.

From the perspective of speed and standards compliance, Safari and Chrome are the winners, Firefox a solid third, and IE8 lags by a lot:

http://www.electronista.com/reviews/browser-tests-chrome-firefox-ie-safari.html

From the standpoint of stability/security, Firefox 3.5.0 was the least polished upgrade, but Mozilla quickly corrected the biggest issues with 3.5.1. I personally experienced sporadic slowdowns and some web sites not fully working with 3.5.0 - but these issues went away after I upgraded to 3.5.1.

I still prefer Firefox at the moment but Google's Chrome may be the best browser by 2010, because:

* Versions of Chrome will soon be released for Mac and Linux platforms.
* The most popular add-ons and plug-ins for IE8 and Firefox are being developed for Chrome and most will be ready by early 2010.
* Chrome's architecture gives it stability and security advantages over the other 4 major browsers.
* Chrome is faster.

Safari 4 is a very capable browser that will please many Mac users, especially those who prefer the slick interface. It will likely never be my favorite because Apple does not aim to support flexibility and extensibility to the same extent as Firefox - but it's a good browser for the majority of Mac users who will never change the default settings.

My most important recommendation continues to be: Use one of the 5 major browsers and keep your browser up to date.  Unfortunately, many people are not doing this, as this paper highlights:

http://www.techzoom.net/publications/firefox-update-dynamics/index.en</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>UPDATE:  In the first half of 2009, 4 major browser upgrades were released.  Opera is the only browser which has not released a major upgrade in 2009, but one is expected by the end of the year.</p>
<p>From the perspective of speed and standards compliance, Safari and Chrome are the winners, Firefox a solid third, and IE8 lags by a lot:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.electronista.com/reviews/browser-tests-chrome-firefox-ie-safari.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.electronista.com/reviews/browser-tests-chrome-firefox-ie-safari.html</a></p>
<p>From the standpoint of stability/security, Firefox 3.5.0 was the least polished upgrade, but Mozilla quickly corrected the biggest issues with 3.5.1. I personally experienced sporadic slowdowns and some web sites not fully working with 3.5.0 &#8211; but these issues went away after I upgraded to 3.5.1.</p>
<p>I still prefer Firefox at the moment but Google&#8217;s Chrome may be the best browser by 2010, because:</p>
<p>* Versions of Chrome will soon be released for Mac and Linux platforms.<br />
* The most popular add-ons and plug-ins for IE8 and Firefox are being developed for Chrome and most will be ready by early 2010.<br />
* Chrome&#8217;s architecture gives it stability and security advantages over the other 4 major browsers.<br />
* Chrome is faster.</p>
<p>Safari 4 is a very capable browser that will please many Mac users, especially those who prefer the slick interface. It will likely never be my favorite because Apple does not aim to support flexibility and extensibility to the same extent as Firefox &#8211; but it&#8217;s a good browser for the majority of Mac users who will never change the default settings.</p>
<p>My most important recommendation continues to be: Use one of the 5 major browsers and keep your browser up to date.  Unfortunately, many people are not doing this, as this paper highlights:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.techzoom.net/publications/firefox-update-dynamics/index.en" rel="nofollow">http://www.techzoom.net/publications/firefox-update-dynamics/index.en</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Filters for Distraction-free Writing by Todd Stanfield</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/04/03/filters-for-distraction-free-writing/comment-page-1/#comment-214</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd Stanfield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:08:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=476#comment-214</guid>
		<description>Just like I said in the "distraction-free reading" post comments, I find Nocturne to be helpful on the Mac in combination with writing apps in full screen mode: http://lifeofless.com/?p=15</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just like I said in the &#8220;distraction-free reading&#8221; post comments, I find Nocturne to be helpful on the Mac in combination with writing apps in full screen mode: <a href="http://lifeofless.com/?p=15" rel="nofollow">http://lifeofless.com/?p=15</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Filters for Reading on the Web by Todd Stanfield</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/03/25/filters-for-reading-on-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-213</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd Stanfield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:04:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=211#comment-213</guid>
		<description>I too love Readability: http://lifeofless.com/?p=6  I also use Instapaper &amp; Google Reader.  I also find using Nocturne helpful for making reading more focused when on a Mac: http://lifeofless.com/?p=15</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I too love Readability: <a href="http://lifeofless.com/?p=6" rel="nofollow">http://lifeofless.com/?p=6</a>  I also use Instapaper &amp; Google Reader.  I also find using Nocturne helpful for making reading more focused when on a Mac: <a href="http://lifeofless.com/?p=15" rel="nofollow">http://lifeofless.com/?p=15</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Desktop or the Cloud? by Bakari</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/05/29/the-desktop-or-the-cloud/comment-page-1/#comment-201</link>
		<dc:creator>Bakari</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:16:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=643#comment-201</guid>
		<description>I've noticed over the years that the majority of documents that I save, I never really use again anyway. If it is really something important I print it out and put it in a file cabinet or on a bookshelf for safekeeping. 

Computing in the clouds is really just a matter of 'when' anyway so  I am just waiting to see how I will adapt.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve noticed over the years that the majority of documents that I save, I never really use again anyway. If it is really something important I print it out and put it in a file cabinet or on a bookshelf for safekeeping. </p>
<p>Computing in the clouds is really just a matter of &#8216;when&#8217; anyway so  I am just waiting to see how I will adapt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Desktop or the Cloud? by Joe Golton</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/05/29/the-desktop-or-the-cloud/comment-page-1/#comment-200</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Golton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:47:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=643#comment-200</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your comment, Barney.  I agree that adoption of web services will be slow in areas with limited broadband access.  Over the next few years, several trends should accelerate to move to the cloud:

*  Wired and cellular broadband access will be much more widespread
*  Browsers will be faster
*  HTML5 and/or Google Gears will allow most web services to cache data so that documents and other forms of static data can be displayed or edited while offline

Personally, both my home and office have faster broadband than yourself so it's already there for me.  And as I mentioned in the article, I have a Blackberry with T-mobile that can do tethering if I really need to access my data while traveling.  It's slow, but much better than nothing for accessing my various Google services like Gmail, calendar, news, reader, etc.  Maybe I'm at the forefront now, but this will likely be standard in 2 or 3 years.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your comment, Barney.  I agree that adoption of web services will be slow in areas with limited broadband access.  Over the next few years, several trends should accelerate to move to the cloud:</p>
<p>*  Wired and cellular broadband access will be much more widespread<br />
*  Browsers will be faster<br />
*  HTML5 and/or Google Gears will allow most web services to cache data so that documents and other forms of static data can be displayed or edited while offline</p>
<p>Personally, both my home and office have faster broadband than yourself so it&#8217;s already there for me.  And as I mentioned in the article, I have a Blackberry with T-mobile that can do tethering if I really need to access my data while traveling.  It&#8217;s slow, but much better than nothing for accessing my various Google services like Gmail, calendar, news, reader, etc.  Maybe I&#8217;m at the forefront now, but this will likely be standard in 2 or 3 years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Desktop or the Cloud? by Barney</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/05/29/the-desktop-or-the-cloud/comment-page-1/#comment-199</link>
		<dc:creator>Barney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:47:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=643#comment-199</guid>
		<description>Many thanks for this very helpful post. It's good to be able to see the pros and cons of cloud computing set out like this. What you say confirms things I've been thinking about for a while.

It seems to me that one of the big drawbacks to cloud computing is the as-yet uneven spread of broadband access. I'm writing in the UK. I live within 20 miles of a major city, and yet the best download speed I can get approximates to 1Mbs or less. It's good enough for most of what I do, but for some things it's just not adequate. Add to that the lack of broadband access when I'm travelling and in some places I go to, and I'm stuck with files and apps on my laptop.

Like you, I've adopted a "mixed economy" with respect to cloud and desktop computing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many thanks for this very helpful post. It&#8217;s good to be able to see the pros and cons of cloud computing set out like this. What you say confirms things I&#8217;ve been thinking about for a while.</p>
<p>It seems to me that one of the big drawbacks to cloud computing is the as-yet uneven spread of broadband access. I&#8217;m writing in the UK. I live within 20 miles of a major city, and yet the best download speed I can get approximates to 1Mbs or less. It&#8217;s good enough for most of what I do, but for some things it&#8217;s just not adequate. Add to that the lack of broadband access when I&#8217;m travelling and in some places I go to, and I&#8217;m stuck with files and apps on my laptop.</p>
<p>Like you, I&#8217;ve adopted a &#8220;mixed economy&#8221; with respect to cloud and desktop computing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Filters for Reading on the Web by Joe Golton</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/03/25/filters-for-reading-on-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-146</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Golton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:46:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=211#comment-146</guid>
		<description>Richard - perhaps using the printing driver mechanism makes sense for interfacing between a computer and e-paper, as that is an interface people are used to and I'm guessing that from a software standpoint, there's not a whole lot of difference between printing to real paper and printing to e-paper.  Also, there already IS one limited form of "print to e-paper" but it only works printing to iphones (or iPod Touches) and is really more intended to be a "read it later" type of service, not read it instantly.  But it's a step in the right direction.  See http://www.instapaper.com/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard &#8211; perhaps using the printing driver mechanism makes sense for interfacing between a computer and e-paper, as that is an interface people are used to and I&#8217;m guessing that from a software standpoint, there&#8217;s not a whole lot of difference between printing to real paper and printing to e-paper.  Also, there already IS one limited form of &#8220;print to e-paper&#8221; but it only works printing to iphones (or iPod Touches) and is really more intended to be a &#8220;read it later&#8221; type of service, not read it instantly.  But it&#8217;s a step in the right direction.  See <a href="http://www.instapaper.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.instapaper.com/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Desktop or the Cloud? by Joe Golton</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/05/29/the-desktop-or-the-cloud/comment-page-1/#comment-135</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Golton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:18:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=643#comment-135</guid>
		<description>Dr. Bill - I agree with you that "cloud" is just another name for a distributed data network, accessed by a smart terminal or client device.  However, what is different is the quality of the software services.

Computer access was through dumb terminals prior the 1970s, so everything was on the cloud.  From the early 1980s until recently, software functionality and interfaces were far superior on personal computers for most types of applications.  But the pendulum is swinging back towards the cloud (or distributed data networks, or whatever you want to call them), as the quality of software available as a web service has greatly increased in recent years, and is now superior to desktop software in certain categories (Gmail versus Outlook, Evernote versus Onenote, etc.) and not even available on the desktop in other categories (search, wikis, blogs, wikipedia, etc.).

So what is different is that for 25 years, using a desktop to get most kinds of work done was the only choice for most individuals, whereas now there is clearly a choice between the desktop and the cloud in many categories of software.  A growing percentage of people are choosing the cloud over the desktop, and many expect this trend to accelerate as it is usually simpler and less epensive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dr. Bill &#8211; I agree with you that &#8220;cloud&#8221; is just another name for a distributed data network, accessed by a smart terminal or client device.  However, what is different is the quality of the software services.</p>
<p>Computer access was through dumb terminals prior the 1970s, so everything was on the cloud.  From the early 1980s until recently, software functionality and interfaces were far superior on personal computers for most types of applications.  But the pendulum is swinging back towards the cloud (or distributed data networks, or whatever you want to call them), as the quality of software available as a web service has greatly increased in recent years, and is now superior to desktop software in certain categories (Gmail versus Outlook, Evernote versus Onenote, etc.) and not even available on the desktop in other categories (search, wikis, blogs, wikipedia, etc.).</p>
<p>So what is different is that for 25 years, using a desktop to get most kinds of work done was the only choice for most individuals, whereas now there is clearly a choice between the desktop and the cloud in many categories of software.  A growing percentage of people are choosing the cloud over the desktop, and many expect this trend to accelerate as it is usually simpler and less epensive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Desktop or the Cloud? by Dr. Bill</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/05/29/the-desktop-or-the-cloud/comment-page-1/#comment-134</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Bill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:56:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=643#comment-134</guid>
		<description>It seems to me that "cloud" is just another name for a distributed data network, accessed by a smart terminal or client device.  This is hardly a new concept.  Only the gadgets that comprise current technology for access are new.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that &#8220;cloud&#8221; is just another name for a distributed data network, accessed by a smart terminal or client device.  This is hardly a new concept.  Only the gadgets that comprise current technology for access are new.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Best Upgrade? The Browser . . . Five Browsers Compared by Joe Golton</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/04/24/best-upgrade-the-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-133</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Golton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:56:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=525#comment-133</guid>
		<description>Richard - From what I've read, I gather that Apple does not allow (or at least makes it difficult for) developers to access anything outside the application window (and note also that the F11 key is reserved for a different use on Macs - though that's a minor point as full screen could be invoked by some other key).  I also gather that there's less demand for it on Apple devices, because the desktop interface contains less distraction than the Windows desktop.  Nevertheless, there are people (such as myself) who prefer zero distraction to less distraction.  Maybe if it becomes popular enough, Apple will allow/encourage it in future O/S versions.

I have not experimented with the Safari plug-ins I mentioned - if anyone has, I would greatly appreciate comments about them.  Specifically, does it get rid of all chrome and expand the browser window to the entire screen, like F11 on browsers for Windows systems?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard &#8211; From what I&#8217;ve read, I gather that Apple does not allow (or at least makes it difficult for) developers to access anything outside the application window (and note also that the F11 key is reserved for a different use on Macs &#8211; though that&#8217;s a minor point as full screen could be invoked by some other key).  I also gather that there&#8217;s less demand for it on Apple devices, because the desktop interface contains less distraction than the Windows desktop.  Nevertheless, there are people (such as myself) who prefer zero distraction to less distraction.  Maybe if it becomes popular enough, Apple will allow/encourage it in future O/S versions.</p>
<p>I have not experimented with the Safari plug-ins I mentioned &#8211; if anyone has, I would greatly appreciate comments about them.  Specifically, does it get rid of all chrome and expand the browser window to the entire screen, like F11 on browsers for Windows systems?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Filters for Distraction-free Writing by Joe Golton</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/04/03/filters-for-distraction-free-writing/comment-page-1/#comment-127</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Golton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 15:46:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=476#comment-127</guid>
		<description>I don't have an authoritative answer for you, but I can tell you my own thoughts and trade offs, as this was one of the issues I faced just after launching FilterJoe.  Links DO need to be identified somehow, both to reference your research and to provide an easy way to get there.  The question is how to do it so it doesn't distract from reading too much.

My first attempt to do this in FilterJoe was to ditch the underline and just make a subtle color difference (dark green instead of black).  Unfortunately, due to variation in screen contrast/color and peoples' eyesight, many people were unable to see my links at all.  So I added underlines back in.

I wish CSS had a way to do faint underlines for hypertext - but as far as I know it doesn't.  The only way to accomplish faint underlines is to choose a low contrast color for both the underline and AND the hyperlinked words - which unfortunately is also distracting.

I have seen a couple of experimental themes that do away with all links unless you hover the mouse over the section containing the links.  To see an example, check out the Boumatic theme, here (click on demo):

http://allancole.com/wordpress/themes/boumatic/

I didn't do something like this because I thought it was so unusual as to be a distraction in itself - though I like the idea in concept.

The best I have to offer at this point is to choose an overall color scheme for the web site such that link colors are relatively low contrast with the text.  That way, they're not too noticeable, though you can find them if you want.  &lt;a href="http://lifehacker.com/" rel="nofollow"&gt;lifehacker&lt;/a&gt; is perhaps the best example I've seen with link color contrast (yet still findable).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t have an authoritative answer for you, but I can tell you my own thoughts and trade offs, as this was one of the issues I faced just after launching FilterJoe.  Links DO need to be identified somehow, both to reference your research and to provide an easy way to get there.  The question is how to do it so it doesn&#8217;t distract from reading too much.</p>
<p>My first attempt to do this in FilterJoe was to ditch the underline and just make a subtle color difference (dark green instead of black).  Unfortunately, due to variation in screen contrast/color and peoples&#8217; eyesight, many people were unable to see my links at all.  So I added underlines back in.</p>
<p>I wish CSS had a way to do faint underlines for hypertext &#8211; but as far as I know it doesn&#8217;t.  The only way to accomplish faint underlines is to choose a low contrast color for both the underline and AND the hyperlinked words &#8211; which unfortunately is also distracting.</p>
<p>I have seen a couple of experimental themes that do away with all links unless you hover the mouse over the section containing the links.  To see an example, check out the Boumatic theme, here (click on demo):</p>
<p><a href="http://allancole.com/wordpress/themes/boumatic/" rel="nofollow">http://allancole.com/wordpress/themes/boumatic/</a></p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t do something like this because I thought it was so unusual as to be a distraction in itself &#8211; though I like the idea in concept.</p>
<p>The best I have to offer at this point is to choose an overall color scheme for the web site such that link colors are relatively low contrast with the text.  That way, they&#8217;re not too noticeable, though you can find them if you want.  <a href="http://lifehacker.com/" rel="nofollow">lifehacker</a> is perhaps the best example I&#8217;ve seen with link color contrast (yet still findable).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Filters for Reading on the Web by Richard Fink</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/03/25/filters-for-reading-on-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-123</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Fink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2009 23:50:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=211#comment-123</guid>
		<description>Moving a text-only version of a web page to an E-paper device for portability and easy reading has really got me thinking.
It can definitely be done but I'm trying to envision how it would happen with just a click, and then proceed invisibly in the background while the user continues to work.
I own the IRex 1000S e-Reader, with the largest E-paper screen 
available. I would love to have this capability. And an open architecture that allows me to import anything into the device.
I promise a report back on this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Moving a text-only version of a web page to an E-paper device for portability and easy reading has really got me thinking.<br />
It can definitely be done but I&#8217;m trying to envision how it would happen with just a click, and then proceed invisibly in the background while the user continues to work.<br />
I own the IRex 1000S e-Reader, with the largest E-paper screen<br />
available. I would love to have this capability. And an open architecture that allows me to import anything into the device.<br />
I promise a report back on this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Filters for Distraction-free Writing by Richard Fink</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/04/03/filters-for-distraction-free-writing/comment-page-1/#comment-122</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Fink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2009 23:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=476#comment-122</guid>
		<description>A lot of writers on the web leave research behind and just blow it out their arse, as Eliza Doolittle would say. (Eliza's blog is a gas, you should check it out.) 
Just kidding. (Note to those under fifty: search George Bernard Shaw for the scoop on Eliza)
Research implies links. LInks have to be identified stylistically in the typography of the page, Do you think that slows up reading. There was an article just a week or so ago on Copyblogger that claims they do. I think they do, too.
A filter that hides links would be a good idea, don't you think?
(I'll await an answer on this one, Mr. Filter)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A lot of writers on the web leave research behind and just blow it out their arse, as Eliza Doolittle would say. (Eliza&#8217;s blog is a gas, you should check it out.)<br />
Just kidding. (Note to those under fifty: search George Bernard Shaw for the scoop on Eliza)<br />
Research implies links. LInks have to be identified stylistically in the typography of the page, Do you think that slows up reading. There was an article just a week or so ago on Copyblogger that claims they do. I think they do, too.<br />
A filter that hides links would be a good idea, don&#8217;t you think?<br />
(I&#8217;ll await an answer on this one, Mr. Filter)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Best Upgrade? The Browser . . . Five Browsers Compared by Richard Fink</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/04/24/best-upgrade-the-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-121</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Fink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2009 23:27:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=525#comment-121</guid>
		<description>I find it strange that Safari does not have a full-screen mode without plug-ins. Expecially since Chrome 2 does and both browsers are based on open-source Webkit.
It's a very conspicous absence. Is it an Apple interface thing, a branding thing? What?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it strange that Safari does not have a full-screen mode without plug-ins. Expecially since Chrome 2 does and both browsers are based on open-source Webkit.<br />
It&#8217;s a very conspicous absence. Is it an Apple interface thing, a branding thing? What?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Best Upgrade? The Browser . . . Five Browsers Compared by Randy</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/04/24/best-upgrade-the-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-113</link>
		<dc:creator>Randy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 00:43:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=525#comment-113</guid>
		<description>Funny, since I wrote my previous comments, I've been using Opera (9.64), which I've never used before. So far, I like it pretty well.

Maybe I just get bored with the same ol', same ol' and need a change every once in a while. I do like to try new things, occasionally.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny, since I wrote my previous comments, I&#8217;ve been using Opera (9.64), which I&#8217;ve never used before. So far, I like it pretty well.</p>
<p>Maybe I just get bored with the same ol&#8217;, same ol&#8217; and need a change every once in a while. I do like to try new things, occasionally.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Filters for Reading on the Web by Richard Fink</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/03/25/filters-for-reading-on-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-112</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Fink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 17:31:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=211#comment-112</guid>
		<description>I have also found a User-Script called Multi-Column Articles very, very useful. FireFox only. Plus you have to install GreaseMonkey first, to get the userscript to run. (Not a big deal, installs easy.)
It takes "Printer Friendly" pages from news sites like the NYTimes and does multi-columns and pagination. Terrific.
This script changed the way I read the Times and I became a more frequent FireFox user as a result.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have also found a User-Script called Multi-Column Articles very, very useful. FireFox only. Plus you have to install GreaseMonkey first, to get the userscript to run. (Not a big deal, installs easy.)<br />
It takes &#8220;Printer Friendly&#8221; pages from news sites like the NYTimes and does multi-columns and pagination. Terrific.<br />
This script changed the way I read the Times and I became a more frequent FireFox user as a result.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Filters for Reading on the Web by Godren</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/03/25/filters-for-reading-on-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-98</link>
		<dc:creator>Godren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 21:19:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=211#comment-98</guid>
		<description>There is another one with both bookmarklet and firefox add-on called &lt;a href="http://www.tidyread.com/" rel="nofollow"&gt;TidyRead&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is another one with both bookmarklet and firefox add-on called <a href="http://www.tidyread.com/" rel="nofollow">TidyRead</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Best Upgrade? The Browser . . . Five Browsers Compared by Randy</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/04/24/best-upgrade-the-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-78</link>
		<dc:creator>Randy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 21:43:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=525#comment-78</guid>
		<description>Expanding on my previous comment, my preference for Safari is more personal preference than anything.

While I like the extensibility of Firefox, I prefer the environment of Safari. It seems more Mac-like to me.

I'll try out Google Chrome when the Mac version is released and I'll always upgrade to the latest version of Firefox, so I'm not a Safari-only user; it's just my preference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Expanding on my previous comment, my preference for Safari is more personal preference than anything.</p>
<p>While I like the extensibility of Firefox, I prefer the environment of Safari. It seems more Mac-like to me.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll try out Google Chrome when the Mac version is released and I&#8217;ll always upgrade to the latest version of Firefox, so I&#8217;m not a Safari-only user; it&#8217;s just my preference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Best Upgrade? The Browser . . . Five Browsers Compared by Randy</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/04/24/best-upgrade-the-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-77</link>
		<dc:creator>Randy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 15:36:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=525#comment-77</guid>
		<description>I've been a Mac user for nearly six years. Most of that time, I've been a dedicated Safari user. I use Firefox as a backup or for web development (using Firebug and Web Developer add-ons).

Every once in a while I switch to Firefox but I always come running back to Safari. I would like more flexibility/adaptability with it, but it's still my favorite browser.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been a Mac user for nearly six years. Most of that time, I&#8217;ve been a dedicated Safari user. I use Firefox as a backup or for web development (using Firebug and Web Developer add-ons).</p>
<p>Every once in a while I switch to Firefox but I always come running back to Safari. I would like more flexibility/adaptability with it, but it&#8217;s still my favorite browser.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Best Upgrade? The Browser . . . Five Browsers Compared by Joe Golton</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/04/24/best-upgrade-the-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-68</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Golton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:18:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=525#comment-68</guid>
		<description>Dr. Bill:  Given that Safari 4 passes the acid3 test, that means it will work with all properly designed web sites.  I did some informal testing this AM with my Windows XP SP3 machine to confirm that Safari 4.0 worked on both sites.  It did (though it did not continuously update stock prices), and it was much faster than Firefox on the Yahoo Finance site (though not as fast as Chrome).  Macintosh speeds will be different.

The most dramatic speed difference was loading the Yahoo Home page:

Firefox 3.0.10   6-7 seconds
Safari 4.0 beta    2-5 seconds
Chrome 1.x.x    Less than 1 second

Safari may be a speed improvement, but keep in mind that Firefox will get a big speed improvement in June or July when Firefox 3.5 is released.  If you are used to the Firefox interface and have a few extensions installed that you like, I think you have more to lose than gain by switching to Safari.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dr. Bill:  Given that Safari 4 passes the acid3 test, that means it will work with all properly designed web sites.  I did some informal testing this AM with my Windows XP SP3 machine to confirm that Safari 4.0 worked on both sites.  It did (though it did not continuously update stock prices), and it was much faster than Firefox on the Yahoo Finance site (though not as fast as Chrome).  Macintosh speeds will be different.</p>
<p>The most dramatic speed difference was loading the Yahoo Home page:</p>
<p>Firefox 3.0.10   6-7 seconds<br />
Safari 4.0 beta    2-5 seconds<br />
Chrome 1.x.x    Less than 1 second</p>
<p>Safari may be a speed improvement, but keep in mind that Firefox will get a big speed improvement in June or July when Firefox 3.5 is released.  If you are used to the Firefox interface and have a few extensions installed that you like, I think you have more to lose than gain by switching to Safari.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Best Upgrade? The Browser . . . Five Browsers Compared by Dr. Bill</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/04/24/best-upgrade-the-browser/comment-page-1/#comment-65</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Bill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:51:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=525#comment-65</guid>
		<description>As a Mac user, if Safari was that good, I would use it instead of Firefox, which I generally do use.  Unfortunately the current version   does not work well on some websites that I frequently use, notably Yahoo Finance and Schwab.  I may take your suggestion and download Safari 4.0 beta to see how if performs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a Mac user, if Safari was that good, I would use it instead of Firefox, which I generally do use.  Unfortunately the current version   does not work well on some websites that I frequently use, notably Yahoo Finance and Schwab.  I may take your suggestion and download Safari 4.0 beta to see how if performs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Filters for Reading on the Web by Joe Golton</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/03/25/filters-for-reading-on-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-59</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Golton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:27:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=211#comment-59</guid>
		<description>Gordon - Thanks for sharing the results of testing Readability on Safari.  I just discovered that there are a number of plug-ins available for Safari that provide additional features.  Full screen mode and other features are added with the plug-ins &lt;a href="http://haoli.dnsalias.com/Saft/index.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;Saft&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href="http://www.machangout.com/" rel="nofollow"&gt;Glims&lt;/a&gt;.  I would greatly appreciate if anyone who has used either of these plug-ins could comment on how well the full screen mode works.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gordon &#8211; Thanks for sharing the results of testing Readability on Safari.  I just discovered that there are a number of plug-ins available for Safari that provide additional features.  Full screen mode and other features are added with the plug-ins <a href="http://haoli.dnsalias.com/Saft/index.html" rel="nofollow">Saft</a> and <a href="http://www.machangout.com/" rel="nofollow">Glims</a>.  I would greatly appreciate if anyone who has used either of these plug-ins could comment on how well the full screen mode works.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Site Design for Reading by Randy</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/03/23/site-design-for-reading/comment-page-1/#comment-38</link>
		<dc:creator>Randy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:28:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=133#comment-38</guid>
		<description>Glad I found your site (by way of the ThemeShaper forum). I just got the Thematic framework theme myself to use to build a church website. When I'm done with the site, I'm going to re-design my blog (using Thematic).

I've always been interested in readability and your post(s) has given me some fresh ideas for improving my skill as a blogger / communicator / designer.

I agree with many of your points. And while I'm not professional designer (like you, I do it because it's part of the communication), here are some of the things that I like in site design ...

&lt;strong&gt;Readability&lt;/strong&gt; -- post/article divided into easy-to-read sections with good headings; short paragraphs, and posts/articles that aren't too long. I'd include good writing here as well.

&lt;strong&gt;Elegant, Minimalist Design&lt;/strong&gt;. I like minimalist designs, but I don't like ugly or boring designs. Even with minimalist designs, they should look good/attractive.

Thanks again!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glad I found your site (by way of the ThemeShaper forum). I just got the Thematic framework theme myself to use to build a church website. When I&#8217;m done with the site, I&#8217;m going to re-design my blog (using Thematic).</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve always been interested in readability and your post(s) has given me some fresh ideas for improving my skill as a blogger / communicator / designer.</p>
<p>I agree with many of your points. And while I&#8217;m not professional designer (like you, I do it because it&#8217;s part of the communication), here are some of the things that I like in site design &#8230;</p>
<p><strong>Readability</strong> &#8212; post/article divided into easy-to-read sections with good headings; short paragraphs, and posts/articles that aren&#8217;t too long. I&#8217;d include good writing here as well.</p>
<p><strong>Elegant, Minimalist Design</strong>. I like minimalist designs, but I don&#8217;t like ugly or boring designs. Even with minimalist designs, they should look good/attractive.</p>
<p>Thanks again!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Filters for Reading on the Web by Gordon Fair</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/03/25/filters-for-reading-on-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-35</link>
		<dc:creator>Gordon Fair</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 05:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=211#comment-35</guid>
		<description>Joe,

Thanks for the suggestions.  Here are a few for &lt;b&gt;Mac&lt;/b&gt; users:
&lt;b&gt;Safari 3.2.1&lt;/b&gt;- "Readability" works fine 
 - must be runing Mac OS 10.4+ to have this version of Safari
 - not sure about previous versions
 - unfortunately the upper right hand "oval" (hide show top and sidebars) is non-existent in Safari (quite odd b/c Apple introduced this functionality).
 
Karin thanks for your Mac Firefox suggestion.

Joe, 
It would be nice to have more Web 2.0 features in writing the comments such as &lt;i&gt;WYSIWYG editing features&lt;/i&gt; so I might be able to indent and create bullet/ordered lists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joe,</p>
<p>Thanks for the suggestions.  Here are a few for <b>Mac</b> users:<br />
<b>Safari 3.2.1</b>- &#8220;Readability&#8221; works fine<br />
 &#8211; must be runing Mac OS 10.4+ to have this version of Safari<br />
 &#8211; not sure about previous versions<br />
 &#8211; unfortunately the upper right hand &#8220;oval&#8221; (hide show top and sidebars) is non-existent in Safari (quite odd b/c Apple introduced this functionality).</p>
<p>Karin thanks for your Mac Firefox suggestion.</p>
<p>Joe,<br />
It would be nice to have more Web 2.0 features in writing the comments such as <i>WYSIWYG editing features</i> so I might be able to indent and create bullet/ordered lists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Filters for Reading on the Web by Joe Golton</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/03/25/filters-for-reading-on-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-32</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Golton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:23:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=211#comment-32</guid>
		<description>Thanks very much for the feedback, Nancy.  I believe I have now addressed all of your points (so this reply replaces my several prior replies with just this one comment):

1)  Unreadable FilterJoe:  I forgot to test FilterJoe with Internet Explorer (IE6, IE7).  The site looked terrible in IE6 and IE7 (you were using one of these, right?), as these versions of Internet Explorer do not follow all web standards.  I have made the needed changes, so FilterJoe displays properly in IE7 and IE8.  There are still some idiosyncrasies on IE6 (most notably the weird looking banner and menu action) but I’m giving up on that for now - it's passable and IE6 is in rapid decline as people migrate to more modern browsers.  The site looks fine on the latest versions of the top 5 browsers.

I will be writing an article in the future about browsers but here's one tidbit now:  Upgrade to a modern browser!  IE8 is quite good, and so are the latest versions of Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera.  Older browers (most especially earlier versions of Internet Explorer) are much slower and may have problems displaying web sites created in the last year or two.

2)  Comments: I changed the site so that the home page now only displays summaries.  The user can click "Read More" to go to the post, at the end of which is the comment box (before, people would read all articles on the home page, and therefore never see the comment box).

Thank you ever so much for your comment - prior to your comment, most Internet Explorer users left FilterJoe less than 20 seconds after visiting for the first time, for good reason. The average visitor stays for at least 5 minutes. In the future, I’ll be careful to view FilterJoe on all 5 major browsers after any change I make.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks very much for the feedback, Nancy.  I believe I have now addressed all of your points (so this reply replaces my several prior replies with just this one comment):</p>
<p>1)  Unreadable FilterJoe:  I forgot to test FilterJoe with Internet Explorer (IE6, IE7).  The site looked terrible in IE6 and IE7 (you were using one of these, right?), as these versions of Internet Explorer do not follow all web standards.  I have made the needed changes, so FilterJoe displays properly in IE7 and IE8.  There are still some idiosyncrasies on IE6 (most notably the weird looking banner and menu action) but I’m giving up on that for now &#8211; it&#8217;s passable and IE6 is in rapid decline as people migrate to more modern browsers.  The site looks fine on the latest versions of the top 5 browsers.</p>
<p>I will be writing an article in the future about browsers but here&#8217;s one tidbit now:  Upgrade to a modern browser!  IE8 is quite good, and so are the latest versions of Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera.  Older browers (most especially earlier versions of Internet Explorer) are much slower and may have problems displaying web sites created in the last year or two.</p>
<p>2)  Comments: I changed the site so that the home page now only displays summaries.  The user can click &#8220;Read More&#8221; to go to the post, at the end of which is the comment box (before, people would read all articles on the home page, and therefore never see the comment box).</p>
<p>Thank you ever so much for your comment &#8211; prior to your comment, most Internet Explorer users left FilterJoe less than 20 seconds after visiting for the first time, for good reason. The average visitor stays for at least 5 minutes. In the future, I’ll be careful to view FilterJoe on all 5 major browsers after any change I make.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Filters for Reading on the Web by Nancy Tague</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/03/25/filters-for-reading-on-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-27</link>
		<dc:creator>Nancy Tague</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:09:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=211#comment-27</guid>
		<description>Thanks -- never knew about F11.  Looking forward to more info.

Thought you'd like to know that at least on my computer, your blog's name "Filter Joe" and the line of text under it overwrites the title and date of the day's blog, making both at least partially unreadable.

How about a button for posting a comment?  Or did I miss it somewhere?  I only found one after reading a comment -- a level farther away and therefore less simple.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks &#8212; never knew about F11.  Looking forward to more info.</p>
<p>Thought you&#8217;d like to know that at least on my computer, your blog&#8217;s name &#8220;Filter Joe&#8221; and the line of text under it overwrites the title and date of the day&#8217;s blog, making both at least partially unreadable.</p>
<p>How about a button for posting a comment?  Or did I miss it somewhere?  I only found one after reading a comment &#8212; a level farther away and therefore less simple.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Filters for Reading on the Web by Karin</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/03/25/filters-for-reading-on-the-web/comment-page-1/#comment-26</link>
		<dc:creator>Karin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 03:54:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=211#comment-26</guid>
		<description>Hi Joe,

Reading your article made me wistful for F11 on my Mac. I was just looking around and found something I can do in 2 clicks. The result isn't quite as good as F11 but seems worthwhile to me. 

When I click on a capsule shaped button in the upper right-hand corner of Firefox, the Firefox toolbars disappear. Then I can close the Bookmarks sidebar I keep open. The Mac interface elements are still there, but those 2 clicks eliminate quite a lot of distraction.

I can also bring everything back with 2 clicks--first the capsule, then I click the Bookmarks button I have in the toolbar. I recall that this button was not a default button but something I added. 

Also, I just added the Readability button. I was surprised how easy it was. I think I did it less than a minute. I didn't realize until I started clicking that their "Example" text allows you to preview what your choices will look like.

Off to see how I like using these things...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Joe,</p>
<p>Reading your article made me wistful for F11 on my Mac. I was just looking around and found something I can do in 2 clicks. The result isn&#8217;t quite as good as F11 but seems worthwhile to me. </p>
<p>When I click on a capsule shaped button in the upper right-hand corner of Firefox, the Firefox toolbars disappear. Then I can close the Bookmarks sidebar I keep open. The Mac interface elements are still there, but those 2 clicks eliminate quite a lot of distraction.</p>
<p>I can also bring everything back with 2 clicks&#8211;first the capsule, then I click the Bookmarks button I have in the toolbar. I recall that this button was not a default button but something I added. </p>
<p>Also, I just added the Readability button. I was surprised how easy it was. I think I did it less than a minute. I didn&#8217;t realize until I started clicking that their &#8220;Example&#8221; text allows you to preview what your choices will look like.</p>
<p>Off to see how I like using these things&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Info Overload or Filter Failure? Introducing FilterJoe by Joe Golton</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/03/20/info-overload-or-filter-failure-introducing-filterjoe/comment-page-1/#comment-25</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Golton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:38:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=56#comment-25</guid>
		<description>Jim and Anita - I took your suggestions and did two things:  eliminated the white space at the bottom and moved RSS links to the upper right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim and Anita &#8211; I took your suggestions and did two things:  eliminated the white space at the bottom and moved RSS links to the upper right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Info Overload or Filter Failure? Introducing FilterJoe by Joe Golton</title>
		<link>http://www.filterjoe.com/2009/03/20/info-overload-or-filter-failure-introducing-filterjoe/comment-page-1/#comment-24</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Golton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:30:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filterjoe.com/?p=56#comment-24</guid>
		<description>Blog home pages usually show recent posts, in reverse chronological order, and FilterJoe will be no exception.  However, I partially implemented your suggestion:  If you click on "About" you'll see a brief description of the blog and a link to the article, "Info Overload or Filter Failure?  Introducing FilterJoe"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Blog home pages usually show recent posts, in reverse chronological order, and FilterJoe will be no exception.  However, I partially implemented your suggestion:  If you click on &#8220;About&#8221; you&#8217;ll see a brief description of the blog and a link to the article, &#8220;Info Overload or Filter Failure?  Introducing FilterJoe&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
